Disrupted and deranged: The formless and the abject in Twin Peaks: The Return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article intends to explore the formlessness of the Woodsmen as unsettling characters in Twin Peaks: The Return (2017). Their lack of, or blurred, humanity and our misunderstanding of their origins, intentions and boundaries is disruptive enough to our senses that there exists a desire to abject them. It is through this abjection that we, as viewers of Twin Peaks (1990–91), experience a loss of self that permeates through the entirety of The Return . Yet, we return to watch the show, as we, as spectators, are drawn to that which confuses and repulses us. The Woodsmen serve as a metaphor for Season 3 in that they aid in our inability to interpret the show in the traditional sense of what a narrative is, could be or should be. Watching Twin Peaks: The Return is an unsettling experience, and the findings and connections drawn through this research serve as one – among many possible – explanations for this uncanniness, of our misunderstanding of a show that exists outside of traditional boundaries. Links will be drawn through this work of David Lynch and Mark Frost along with the theories and philosophies of Georges Bataille and Julia Kristeva, among others, with the intention of responding to the overarching question of why The Return was so difficult and unsettling to watch as viewers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".